In an interview last night with CNN host Piers Morgan, Herman Cain initially responded to questions about abortion by repeating that he is against abortion, including in cases of rape and incest (although he has said families should decide when the mother’s life is at stake):
MORGAN: Abortion. What’s your view of abortion?
CAIN: I believe that life begins at conception. And abortion under no circumstances. And here’s why –MORGAN: No circumstances?
CAIN: No circumstances.
MORGAN: Because many of your fellow candidates — some of them qualify that.
CAIN: They qualify but –
MORGAN: Rape and incest.
CAIN: Rape and incest.
But then Cain goes on to talk about how “it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision,” although it’s unclear if he’s talking about abortion generally or about abortions when the pregnancy was caused by rape:
MORGAN: Are you honestly saying — again, it’s a tricky question, I know.
CAIN: Ask the tricky question.
MORGAN: But you’ve had children, grandchildren. If one of your female children, grand children was raped, you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?
CAIN: You’re mixing two things here, Piers?
MORGAN: Why?
CAIN: You’re mixing –
MORGAN: That’s what it comes down to.
CAIN: No, it comes down to it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision. Secondly, if you look at the statistical incidents, you’re not talking about that big a number. So what I’m saying is it ultimately gets down to a choice that that family or that mother has to make.Not me as president, not some politician, not a bureaucrat. It gets down to that family. And whatever they decide, they decide. I shouldn’t have to tell them what decision to make for such a sensitive issue.
I’ve reached out to his campaign to see if they can clarify what he meant. But it’s worth mentioning that, as I noted the other day, Cain chose not to run for Senate in 1998 partially because he was unsure his views on abortion would be compatible with the most ardent pro-life voters. ”[W]ith the pro-life and pro-abortion debate, the most vocal people are on the ends. I am pro-life with exceptions, and people want you to be all or nothing,” Cain told Nation’s Restaurant News, adding that he was “not a social-issue crusader” but a “free-enterprise crusader.” However, whatever his concerns were in 1998, he did run as pro-life (no exceptions in cases of rape and incest — the only exception he ran on was for the mother’s life) in the 2004 Georgia senate race, and won an endorsement from Georgia Right to Life that election cycle.
UPDATE: A reader sends along this clip of Cain on John Stossel’s show, where Cain again seems to be stressing both that it’s up to a woman (at least in certain cases) whether she has an abortion, and the government should stay out, but also that abortion should be illegal:
I read his comment that, "...it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision..." as responding to the question, "...you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?"
Yes, except that wouldn't make sense. No one has proposed the gov't require people raise a baby as opposed to give it up for adoption or pawn it off on their parents. What the whole topic was about is should women be allowed to have abortions. The clear inference is that should she be required to have it or not.
I care about the lives of unborn children. I think abortion should be made illegal in all but the most extreme circumstances. But right now, the state our country and economy is in, it's quite possibly the least of my concerns. It's certainly not going to change who I vote for, and I would really hate to have our nominee determined by social issues, which is exactly what the left/MSM would kill for.
What I find incredibly disgusting is that Kathryn Lopez, a Catholic who claims the pro-life cause as her preeminent concern, has no problem whatsoever supporting Romney.
If abortion is infanticide, it ranks with slavery as among the gravest injustices in history. She believes it to be and yet endorses the equivalent of John C. Calhoun nonetheless.
Look back at that tape of Willard establishing his abortion bona fides---it's easily the most passionate we've ever seen the guy, like Kervorkian describing assisted suicide.
This is only an aside to the larger topic, but it is so disheartening to see how often people think the options concerning a pregnancy are 1) abort, or 2) "bring up that baby as her own". It is similar to the idea that a person would abort an unwanted child because it would be even harder to think someone else was raising it.
That's where the fallacy in the question lies, and I hope that's what Cain was talking about when he said "it's not my decision". The government shouldn't be telling anybody whether they have to keep/raise a child - prohibiting abortion is not the same as requiring the mother to raise the child.
Oh please. He is obviously referring to the instance where the mother's life is in danger. His position is clearly articulated on numerous occasion, most recently in the last debate.
Look forward to seeing NRO spending equal time parsing Romney's answers, past and present, on abortion. I am waiting....
Oh will you people stop bringing up Romney every time a writer at NRO rightfully brings up one of Cain's muddled responses to a question. Yes, Romney is a terrible candidate and NRO is once again ramming him down our throats, but that doesn't mean Cain (or any other candidate for that matter) isn't fair game when they can't offer a coherent response to a straightforward question.
I read NRO every day, and have for years. I don't recall them "ramming" anybody down "our" throats either last time around or this time around. Certain members of the staff certainly have a preference for Romney, but others have preferences for other candidates (or non-candidates). All are permited to, and do, speak about those preferences. This idea that there's some "NRO Conspiracy" to install Romney is just ridiculous.
You want to see what real "ramming" looks like - go check out Jen Rubin's blob at WaPo. I love a lot of what she writes, but when it comes to talking about the primary race, Romney can do no wrong and nobody else can do anything right. After reading the spin there you may think differently about what you perceive here.
RE: "This idea that there's some 'NRO Conspiracy' to install Romney is just ridiculous."
NR does wish all us troublemakers would just shut our pie holes and get in line behind Romney, he of great hair and a game show host smile, an "inoffensive" master politician who is a champion of the middle. It would be so much easier.
Too many factors are working against that, however. It appears, this time, we have some actual distinct choices. It also appears that conservatives don't have to compromise much, if anything, at all, to be assured victory over the current Socialist in Chief. None of this bodes well for Captain Squishboy.
Yes, this was interesting. There is the obvious interpretation, but there are a couple charitable interpretations if you read between the lines.
1. The President should have no role because it should be up to the states.
2. Under the current circumstances--abortion is legal--it's up to the family to decide whether it's right or not.
The uncharitable, but seemingly most likely, interpretation is that Cain goes with the "well, personally I'm against it, but..." cop-out (Kerry 2004 e.g.).
It would certainly be interesting to hear more about it.
I'm still not sure why this is even an issue in Presidential politics. The President of the United States does not *make* abortion policy. As matters stand now, only the Supreme Court can actually make policy. Congress can nibble around the edges, but any laws that can both pass Constitutional muster in the post -Roe era and be acceptable to GOP majorities in both houses should be painless for any Republican President to sign.
When it comes to Supreme Court appointments, both the President's view of abortion and the nominee's should be irrelevant. The problem with Roe v Wade isn't where it came down on the issue, but that it is incompetent jurisprudence. A majority on the hight Court simply ignored the law and the Constitution and declared its policy preference a fundamental right. Even a solidly pro-abortion jurist who had respect for the Constitution would have rejected the arguments in Roe. In fact, as Robert Bork has written, the Court ought never have HEARD Roe because there was no Federal issue involved in the case. The issue should have been returned to the political branches, where it belongs. (If it had, been a compromise along the lines of what Cain suggests - no abortion except in cases of rape or incest or danger to the life of the mother - would have emerged long ago. Because that is really where most Americans stand on the issue. Then it would have been the job of the absolutists on each side to try to persuade their fellow citizens to change their minds, which is what politics is supposed to be about.)
I would never refuse to vote for a presidential candidate because of his views on abortion provided he promised to appoint Federal judges and justices who were not ideological activists, because I believe that when a majority of such men and women occupy the Federal bench, not only Roe v. Wade but a lot of other extra-constitutional nonsense can be removed from the purview of unelected and unaccountable wizards in black robes and returned to the people's representatives. The most ardent pro-lifer would do the cause no good if he or she appointed judges who thought it right to read *their* policy preferences into the Constitution, as the justices in Roe did.
"The most ardent pro-lifer would do the cause no good if he or she appointed judges who thought it right to read *their* policy preferences into the Constitution, as the justices in Roe did."
True, but, as it happens, 99% of the pro-lifers are also strict constructionists, 99% of the strict constructionists are also pro-life, and pro-choicers who are also strict constructionists are as rare as hens' teeth.
Moreover, even if there were a strict-constructionist candidate who favored abortion, I wouldn't trust him to keep his policy views entirely apart from his evaluation of a judge. Nor would I be certain of his character; I would have to hear a good argument explaining how a fetus isn't human or, if he or she is, why the killing is OK.
Herman Cain is an interesting guy with a compelling life story, but he is a newcomer to the political stage and there are many issues upon which he has not declared a position. Since his political history is limited, there isn't much to suggest what his position might be on issues like abortion, immigration and the war on terror. As we've learned the hard way over the last three years, what an unknown candidate says he will do before an election is no guarantee that he'll do what he said after the election. President Obama also had a compelling life story, so let's not go there again. Mr. Cain has already changed his position on 9-9-9, so voters should not allow their enthusiasm for an outsider who delivers a great one-liner to overshadow all else.
I read his comment that, "...it’s not the government’s role or anybody else’s role to make that decision..." as responding to the question, "...you would honestly want her to bring up that baby as her own?"
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, except that wouldn't make sense. No one has proposed the gov't require people raise a baby as opposed to give it up for adoption or pawn it off on their parents. What the whole topic was about is should women be allowed to have abortions. The clear inference is that should she be required to have it or not.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis answer tends to make me more pro-Cain. It is a true pro-choice and pro-life view.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYeah, I couldn't really care less right now about any candidate's position on abortion. Or gay marriage, for that matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseGood for you. Unfortunately for Cain, many if not most of the rest of us do.
Interesting captcha: "protecting the stuff that matters." I guess in some cases the lives of unborn children wouldn't qualify for such protection.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI care about the lives of unborn children. I think abortion should be made illegal in all but the most extreme circumstances. But right now, the state our country and economy is in, it's quite possibly the least of my concerns. It's certainly not going to change who I vote for, and I would really hate to have our nominee determined by social issues, which is exactly what the left/MSM would kill for.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abusethe state our country and economy is in, it's quite possibly the least of my concerns.
Yeah, what's a few million murdered babies when unemployment's at 9 percent.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseWhat I find incredibly disgusting is that Kathryn Lopez, a Catholic who claims the pro-life cause as her preeminent concern, has no problem whatsoever supporting Romney.
If abortion is infanticide, it ranks with slavery as among the gravest injustices in history. She believes it to be and yet endorses the equivalent of John C. Calhoun nonetheless.
Look back at that tape of Willard establishing his abortion bona fides---it's easily the most passionate we've ever seen the guy, like Kervorkian describing assisted suicide.
Disgusting.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseEverything, everything can be tied back to the social issues (morals). If we don't have our minds right, our wallets don't matter.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThis is only an aside to the larger topic, but it is so disheartening to see how often people think the options concerning a pregnancy are 1) abort, or 2) "bring up that baby as her own". It is similar to the idea that a person would abort an unwanted child because it would be even harder to think someone else was raising it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseThat's where the fallacy in the question lies, and I hope that's what Cain was talking about when he said "it's not my decision". The government shouldn't be telling anybody whether they have to keep/raise a child - prohibiting abortion is not the same as requiring the mother to raise the child.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh please. He is obviously referring to the instance where the mother's life is in danger. His position is clearly articulated on numerous occasion, most recently in the last debate.
Look forward to seeing NRO spending equal time parsing Romney's answers, past and present, on abortion. I am waiting....
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseOh will you people stop bringing up Romney every time a writer at NRO rightfully brings up one of Cain's muddled responses to a question. Yes, Romney is a terrible candidate and NRO is once again ramming him down our throats, but that doesn't mean Cain (or any other candidate for that matter) isn't fair game when they can't offer a coherent response to a straightforward question.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI read NRO every day, and have for years. I don't recall them "ramming" anybody down "our" throats either last time around or this time around. Certain members of the staff certainly have a preference for Romney, but others have preferences for other candidates (or non-candidates). All are permited to, and do, speak about those preferences. This idea that there's some "NRO Conspiracy" to install Romney is just ridiculous.
You want to see what real "ramming" looks like - go check out Jen Rubin's blob at WaPo. I love a lot of what she writes, but when it comes to talking about the primary race, Romney can do no wrong and nobody else can do anything right. After reading the spin there you may think differently about what you perceive here.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseRE: "This idea that there's some 'NRO Conspiracy' to install Romney is just ridiculous."
NR does wish all us troublemakers would just shut our pie holes and get in line behind Romney, he of great hair and a game show host smile, an "inoffensive" master politician who is a champion of the middle. It would be so much easier.
Too many factors are working against that, however. It appears, this time, we have some actual distinct choices. It also appears that conservatives don't have to compromise much, if anything, at all, to be assured victory over the current Socialist in Chief. None of this bodes well for Captain Squishboy.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseFair point. I overstated my case, though there's certainly a pro-Romney tint coming from some of the editors, especially Lowry and K-Lo.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseYes, this was interesting. There is the obvious interpretation, but there are a couple charitable interpretations if you read between the lines.
1. The President should have no role because it should be up to the states.
2. Under the current circumstances--abortion is legal--it's up to the family to decide whether it's right or not.
The uncharitable, but seemingly most likely, interpretation is that Cain goes with the "well, personally I'm against it, but..." cop-out (Kerry 2004 e.g.).
It would certainly be interesting to hear more about it.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseI'm still not sure why this is even an issue in Presidential politics. The President of the United States does not *make* abortion policy. As matters stand now, only the Supreme Court can actually make policy. Congress can nibble around the edges, but any laws that can both pass Constitutional muster in the post -Roe era and be acceptable to GOP majorities in both houses should be painless for any Republican President to sign.
When it comes to Supreme Court appointments, both the President's view of abortion and the nominee's should be irrelevant. The problem with Roe v Wade isn't where it came down on the issue, but that it is incompetent jurisprudence. A majority on the hight Court simply ignored the law and the Constitution and declared its policy preference a fundamental right. Even a solidly pro-abortion jurist who had respect for the Constitution would have rejected the arguments in Roe. In fact, as Robert Bork has written, the Court ought never have HEARD Roe because there was no Federal issue involved in the case. The issue should have been returned to the political branches, where it belongs. (If it had, been a compromise along the lines of what Cain suggests - no abortion except in cases of rape or incest or danger to the life of the mother - would have emerged long ago. Because that is really where most Americans stand on the issue. Then it would have been the job of the absolutists on each side to try to persuade their fellow citizens to change their minds, which is what politics is supposed to be about.)
I would never refuse to vote for a presidential candidate because of his views on abortion provided he promised to appoint Federal judges and justices who were not ideological activists, because I believe that when a majority of such men and women occupy the Federal bench, not only Roe v. Wade but a lot of other extra-constitutional nonsense can be removed from the purview of unelected and unaccountable wizards in black robes and returned to the people's representatives. The most ardent pro-lifer would do the cause no good if he or she appointed judges who thought it right to read *their* policy preferences into the Constitution, as the justices in Roe did.
Regards,
Joe
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse"The most ardent pro-lifer would do the cause no good if he or she appointed judges who thought it right to read *their* policy preferences into the Constitution, as the justices in Roe did."
True, but, as it happens, 99% of the pro-lifers are also strict constructionists, 99% of the strict constructionists are also pro-life, and pro-choicers who are also strict constructionists are as rare as hens' teeth.
Moreover, even if there were a strict-constructionist candidate who favored abortion, I wouldn't trust him to keep his policy views entirely apart from his evaluation of a judge. Nor would I be certain of his character; I would have to hear a good argument explaining how a fetus isn't human or, if he or she is, why the killing is OK.
Reply to this commentLinkReport AbuseHerman Cain is an interesting guy with a compelling life story, but he is a newcomer to the political stage and there are many issues upon which he has not declared a position. Since his political history is limited, there isn't much to suggest what his position might be on issues like abortion, immigration and the war on terror. As we've learned the hard way over the last three years, what an unknown candidate says he will do before an election is no guarantee that he'll do what he said after the election. President Obama also had a compelling life story, so let's not go there again. Mr. Cain has already changed his position on 9-9-9, so voters should not allow their enthusiasm for an outsider who delivers a great one-liner to overshadow all else.
Reply to this commentLinkReport Abuse